Maybe I'm being dense, but what the heck is this picture supposed to show? It looks like the glacier is calving on land. Do they do that?

"Ice sheet models usually don't include all the complexity of ice dynamics that can happen in nature." i.e. she doesn't know all about them either. But she's busy giving advice on the basis of what she does know.
Seeing as the same statement (to the 10th power) applies to climate models, can we also conclude that policy should not be based on them?

the changes that the researchers are seeing are now bigger than can be accounted for by normal, annual perturbations in climate, according to Dr. Csatho

Complete nonsense.

The distance the glacier retreated in the 49 year period between 1880 and 1929 was considerably larger than during the 50 year period between 1953 and 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jakobshavn_Isbr%C3%A6_1850-2003.jpg

The glacier is located here
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=69.166667,-49.833333&ie=UTF8&ll=67.101656,-42.231445&spn=10.928375,52.734375&z=5&iwloc=addr&om=0

GISS data shows that temperatures were higher there in the 1930s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

What explanation can be made for this? Are the "scientists" who wrote the report incompetent or dishonest? What is wrong with the peer review process? One minute on Google was enough to gather enough official evidence to completely debunk their claims.

The most recent NASA data shows Greenland contributing 0.5mm per year to sea level rise. That works out to one meter in 2,000 years - much lower than the IPCC projections.

Perhaps cell phones do destroy scientist's brain cells after all.....

Arctic sea ice extent greatest it has been in four years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

And going up very fast.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

But..... all the "studies" said that Arctic ice was declining at a record rate. (Reply: Most of those studies are talking about the summer ice melt season, not the dead of winter.) And then there is that troublesome other pole which the climate modelers have completely written off.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

stop saying what might happen and use some instruments to measure it. Oh wait nobody can say that sea level is rising becasue it is so miniscule and too many other factors prevent this. Of course over long term it may rise or fall by 5 feet you can tell. Global warming is a crock and no reasonable evidence has come forward saying that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing it. I haven't seen too many stories about both sides of this phenomena but will keep looking.

Hi Brett,

There was essentially no decline in the Arctic summer minima between 1999 and 2006. 2007 was a one year anomaly which NASA has attributed to unusual winds blowing up through the Bering Strait and pushing ice out into warmer Atlantic waters.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

One year is not a "trend," (Reply: That's right, I am glad you finally realized that Patrick.) and 2008 ice is nearly 1 million km2 greater than this time in 2007.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Just looking at the picture -

It looks nearly stalled at 2004 - 2006

2001 - 2004 it made a huge retreat - given the spacing of the other data points - nothing else comes close

1964 - 2001 virtually stalled for 17 years

1929 - 1953 (over 30's warm period) 24 years it retreated, but not as much as the 3 year period 01 - 04

Is possible that the geography underneath it plays a significant role in calving? Perhaps a cliff or steep embankment is under the region it retreated over 01 - 04, and it would calve under it's own weight more easily, regardless. If that were possible, comparisons to any other 3 year period wouldn't be very illuminating.

When was the last time it grew?

Patrick Henry:
Well, you have found them out again!! I just don't get it. If you are so "right" and they are so wrong, why are you not a lead scientist at some famous University? I just don't get it. You so easily "debunk' every statement the scientist make on AGW and yet, no one has heard of you - off this site, anyway. Could it be YOU got it wrong? Could it be that you consistently get it wrong? That there is something about this you don't understand? Because your ideology won't allow it? I don't know, but it seems to me that a little humility wouldn't hurt.

So, they take this research on one glacier and extrapolate it across the globe. What kind of junk-science is this?

Given a choice between the peer review committee at the Journal of Glaciology and Patrick Henry's one minute on Google, I'll take the Journal.

I wonder if either Diana or Patrick actually read the paper.

Looks to me it has been receding before we started heavily pumping co2 into the air. Can you say "natural process" boys and girls?

Patrick,
Do you ever get the sense that you are talking to yourself?

You are proven wrong so often I skip your posts. If you can look at the picture and draw those conclusions you shouldn't post on scientific topics.

Or are you just attention starved.

Read the paper. Very serious stuff.

"The thinning started as early as the end of the 18th century, but the changes that the researchers are seeing are now bigger than can be accounted for by normal, annual perturbations in climate, according to Dr. Csatho."

There are no changes and never were any changes to be accounted for by normal, annual perturbations. Glaciers are entirely controlled by the amount of snow deposited at their source.

Patrick,
Competent “Peer Review” revolves around a sufficient number of reviewers that are NOT biased and don’t have the agenda.
As Willy Shakespeare said, “Aye there’s the rub!”
Just a few more reasons why “Peer review” in the world of AGW is sloppy
• Too few competent reviewers for all the papers.
• No pay for reviewers so no incentive to spend time doing a critical review when they could be writting crap of their own.
• This is a small science discipline so reviewers want to “go along to get along” so their papers can get reviewed.
• Publishing is the root of all funding and job security. To question a “hot subject” can be your ticket to ridicule, obscurity and poverty.

BTW: This glacier has been receeding since the 18th century...So it started receeding before the real major industrial revolution.....hmmm

Patrick:
If you at look at the satellite picture, and then look at the terrain map, one shows ice and one shows land. Isn't that a difference. Why is the terrain map only white?
Kipp

"Are the "scientists" who wrote the report incompetent or dishonest?"

There is a third option, i.e. you have no idea what you are talking about.

Like this posting, Nearly every single serious publication study posted on this site has been based on modeling and theory. The key words being "could", "may" and "if". Also most seem to end on data based up to 2000-2004.

Does field data exist showing the rise in sea level that would be consistent with the glacial melting that is reported to have occurred starting in the 18th century?

If you want to discuss the rise of the oceans, all you have to do is look at the Yucatan peninsula. Literally miles of submerged tunnels and caverns that were once ABOVE sea level:

http://www.caves.org/project/qrss/qrss.htm

Or did the ground sink, or were ocean levels substantially lower for a long period of time millions of years ago?

Diogenes

Just to clarify why Patrick Henry doesn't know what he is talking about, he has leaped to the conclusion that the researchers are stupid or corrupt while forgetting that glaciers are actually three dimensional.

Which was the whole point of the paper.

The wh-rish bean counters & button sorters are just trolling for grant money from the Al Gores of the world.
Records show that ice over water is melting; ice over land is accumulating. As long as that keeps happening, there will be a LOWERING of sea levels.
What's so tough to understand?

Hi Boris,

How about this for "leaping to conclusions?"

The author's map showed essentially no movement in the glacial front from 1964 to 2001. Then, due to a breakup of an ice bench, the front retreated 15km over the next three years, and has re-stabilized near the base of the ice sheet.

From this tiny bit of information spanning a three year period, the author has jumped to the conclusion that "Sea Level Rise Projections might be Underestimated." I don't see one iota of evidence in his discussion to support such a conclusion.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/JakobshavnOverheadWdates_1024_web.html

My "TUNNEL" idea can reverse the effects of global warming.

Here is a quick sketch of the "TUNNEL". Any questions I'll gladly answer as to how this works.

[IMG]http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s54/hurricanedude/200801080001.jpg[/IMG]

why are you not a lead scientist at some famous University?

kevinag,

Good question. The answer is that I prefer doing useful work for industry, rather than ivory tower research under constant funding stress. I have done several stints at National Labs, and found the political and funding atmosphere beyond stifling.

Every Congressional election your world gets turned on it's ear, and you are constantly having to battle to keep the money coming in. It drives everybody crazy and causes many good people to misbehave. Same story at universities.

Aram. you don't make sense. If ice over water melts, there will be more H20 in the water. This water, also, has more salt in it. After this ice on land should melt,but it is in water like the ARCTIC, which is melting now. Al Gore made his millions in business and donated all of the proceeds of his book and film to Charity. He is a good businessman. Unlike our President. Have you read the whole IPCC Assessment. Did you know that all of these scientists are getting an amount according to their pay grade.
Kipp

An article containing some actual up-to-date sea ice information from Alaska is pasted below. It's probably useful to mention again that another reason to be concerned about the Arctic sea ice is because an increasing summer loss will induce the Greenland ice sheet to melt faster.

Recall that another article I posted a week or so ago quoted a scientist on a research ship in the high Arctic (off Banks Island to the northeast of Alaska) described the ice as acting like "Styrofoam in a bathtub."

Oh, and Rigor (the sea ice expert quoted in the article) was very much a skeptic about this as recently as a couple of months ago.

Finally, to clarify a little the discussion about the Arctic Oscillation, climate models have predicted that warming will in effect seize control of the Arctic Oscillation and keep it more or less permanently in the positive mode that flushes out the old ice (as we are seeing again this year). Strictly speaking this hypothesis is not proven, but the behavior of the sea ice over the last 20 years or so is completely consistent with it. If the AO remains strongly positive and the warming trend continues, we are on a very short path to a sea ice-free summer Arctic.

----------------------------

Polar ice pack loss may break 2007 record

TREND: Ocean currents, global warming and wind combine to leave the Arctic ice fragile.

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: February 12th, 2008 12:02 AM

New data this winter on Arctic winds and currents indicate that next summer's ice loss at the North Pole may be even greater than 2007's record-setting shrinkage.

The last remnants of thick, old sea ice are dispersing, and the unusual weather cycles that contributed to last year's loss of ice are continuing, a climatologist told an Anchorage conference Monday.

"The buoys are streaming out," said University of Washington climatologist Ignatius Rigor, referring to the satellite-tracked markers used to monitor the flushing of ice into the North Atlantic. Such a pattern preceded last summer's record ice loss but was not expected to continue so strongly.

Scientists are watching the polar ice closely, trying to sort out the effects of global warming and natural cyclical changes.

Formal projections of next summer's expected ice loss won't be made for another month or so. But all indications to date are that ice loss will equal or exceed last year's, "unless the winds turn around," Rigor said at an environmental science conference at the Egan Center.

The thin veneer of new ice now covering the polar seas is not like the older, thicker sea ice that once covered the region in winter, Rigor said. In 1989, 80 percent of the ice in the Arctic was at least 10 years old, he said. Today, only about 3 percent of the ice is that old.

The new ice melts more quickly, and then open water absorbs more sunlight, warming the seas and making the next fall's freeze-up come even later, he said.

"Have we passed the tipping point?" he said. "It's hard to see how the system may come back."

The prospect of a mostly ice-free Arctic could mean a boom in shipping through the Bering Strait, several speakers said at Monday's Alaska Forum on the Environment. But it is bad news for polar bears and other animals that may be bound for the endangered-species list, speakers said.

Polar bears prefer ice over the shallow continental shelf north of Alaska because it supports a rich food chain, said Steve Amstrup, a leading polar bear biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. But with last summer's melting, some Alaska bears were pacing the ice as much as 600 miles north of Barrow, far from their preferred habitat, Amstrup told the conference.

Amstrup was lead federal biologist in a series of studies released last year depicting the Alaska bear as likely to disappear by 2050 because of global warming. A decision by the Department of the Interior on whether to list the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act was due in January but has been postponed.

The state of Alaska, among others, opposes the listing, arguing the forecasts of declining sea ice are too speculative.

But scientists said Monday that the forecasts were, if anything, too cautious. None foresaw the disastrous shrinkage of 2007.

"Five of the 10 studies we used projected more sea ice at midcentury than we had this summer," Amstrup said.

The shrinkage is related to higher temperatures, scientists said, but also to shif